Toward Better Temporal Structures for Geopolitical Events Forecasting

Kian Ahrabian, Eric Boxer, Jay Pujara · Jan 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Forecasting on geopolitical temporal knowledge graphs (TKGs) through the lens of large language models (LLMs) has recently gained traction. While TKGs and their generalization, hyper-relational temporal knowledge graphs (HTKGs), offer a straightforward structure to represent simple temporal relationships, they lack the expressive power to convey complex facts efficiently. One of the critical limitations of HTKGs is a lack of support for more than two primary entities in temporal facts, which commonly occur in real-world events. To address this limitation, in this work, we study a generalization of HTKGs, Hyper-Relational Temporal Knowledge Generalized Hypergraphs (HTKGHs). We first derive a formalization for HTKGHs, demonstrating their backward compatibility while supporting two complex types of facts commonly found in geopolitical incidents. Then, utilizing this formalization, we introduce the htkgh-polecat dataset, built upon the global event database POLECAT. Finally, we benchmark and analyze popular LLMs on our dataset, providing insights into 1) the positive impact of utilizing the HTKGH formalization compared to existing ones and 2) LLMs' adaptability and capabilities in complex forecasting tasks.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.